TREASURY

ECOFIN

George Osborne: A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council will be held in Brussels on 9 July 2013. The following items are on the agenda to be discussed.
	Presentation of the Lithuanian Presidency Work Programme
	The presidency will present its six-month work programme for ECOFIN.
	Follow-up to the European Council on 27-28 June 2013
	Ministers will hold an exchange of views on the June European Council conclusions.
	Adoption of the euro by Latvia
	Following the recommendation adopted at June ECOFIN and the positive assessment of Latvia’s convergence programme and criteria at European Council, ECOFIN will adopt the legal acts concerning the adoption of the euro by Latvia.
	Implementation of the two-pack
	The Council will seek to endorse the code of conduct for the euro area member states on draft budgetary plans and the Council will be invited to confirm its intention not to raise objections to the delegated regulation proposed by the Commission, on content and scope of the reporting obligations for euro area member states subject to an excessive deficit procedure.
	Follow-up to G20 Finance Deputies meeting on 6-7 June (St Petersburg) and preparation of G20 Meeting of Finance Ministers and Governors of 19-20 July (Moscow)
	The presidency and the Commission will debrief Ministers on the G20 Finance Deputies meeting. Council will then be invited to endorse the EU terms of reference for the forthcoming G20 Finance Ministers’ and Central Bank Governors’ meeting.
	Any other business—Current legislative proposals
	The presidency intends to give a state of play update on the market abuse directive/market abuse regulation.

EDUCATION

Education Reform (National Curriculum)

Michael Gove: On 7 February this year, I made a statement outlining the next stage in our programme of raising standards in schools. I outlined draft programmes of study for a revised national curriculum, a new approach to qualifications for secondary school students and also a new and fairer way of holding schools to account for the quality of their teaching.
	No national curriculum can be modernised without paying close attention to what is been happening in education internationally.
	Officials in the Department for Education have spent years examining and analysing the curricula used in the world’s most successful school systems such as Hong Kong, Massachusetts, Singapore and Finland.
	Informed by that work and in consultation with subject experts and teachers the Department produced a draft revised national curriculum, which we put out for public consultation five months ago.
	We have given all the submissions we received during the consultation period close and careful consideration, and today we are publishing a summary of the comments received and the Government’s response.
	We are also publishing a revised national curriculum framework for all subjects except key stage 4 English, mathematics and science.
	Copies of each of these documents have been placed in the Library of the House. A consultation on key stage 4 English, mathematics and science will follow in the autumn, once decisions on GCSE content for those subjects have been taken.
	The publication of our proposals provoked a vigorous and valuable national debate on what is, and what should be, taught in our schools. We have welcomed this debate.
	It is right that every member of society should care about the content of the national curriculum, not only because it helps to define the ambitions that we set for our young people, but because of what it says about the knowledge that we, as a society, think it is essential that we should pass down from one generation to the next.
	The updated national curriculum framework that we are publishing today features a number of revisions to the draft made on the basis of evidence and arguments presented to us during the consultation period. In particular we have revised the draft programmes of study for design and technology to ensure that they sufficiently reflect our aspirations that it should be a rigorous and forward-looking subject that will set children on a path to be the next generation of designers and engineers.
	We have also revised the programmes of study for history. We have given teachers a greater level of flexibility over how to structure lessons and we have increased the coverage of world history, while also requiring all children to be taught the essential narrative of this country’s past.
	Other significant changes include the inclusion of a stronger emphasis on vocabulary development in the programmes of study for English and greater flexibility in the choice of foreign languages which primary schools will now be required to teach. And perhaps the most significant change of all is the replacement of ICT with computing. Instead of just learning to use programmes created by others, it is vital that children learn to create their own programmes.
	These changes will reinforce our drive to raise standards in our schools.
	They will ensure that the new national curriculum provides a rigorous basis for teaching, provides a benchmark for all schools to improve their performance, and gives
	children and parents a better guarantee that every student will acquire the knowledge to succeed in the modern world.
	Having confirmed our intentions for the new national curriculum we are, in accordance with the legislation that underpins it, commencing a one month consultation on the legislative order which will give it statutory effect. Subject to the outcome of that consultation, we intend to finalise the new national curriculum this autumn so that schools have a year to prepare to teach it from September 2014.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

British Indian Ocean Territory

Mark Simmonds: On 20 December last year my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced that we would take stock of our policy on the resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT). I wish to update the House on this process.
	This Government have expressed their regret about the way resettlement of BIOT was carried out in the late 1960s and early 1970s. We do not seek to justify those actions or excuse the conduct of an earlier generation. What happened was clearly wrong, which is why substantial compensation was rightly paid. Both the British courts and the European Court of Human Rights have confirmed that compensation has been paid in full and final settlement.
	Decisions about the fixture of the BIOT are more difficult. Successive British Governments have consistently opposed resettlement of the islands—on the grounds of both defence and feasibility.
	The Government must be honest about these challenges and concerns. Long-term settlement risks being both precarious and costly. The outer islands, which have been uninhabited for 40 years, are low-lying and lack all basic facilities and infrastructure. The cost and practicalities of providing the levels of infrastructure and public services appropriate for a 21st century British society are likely to be significant and present a heavy ongoing contingent liability for the UK taxpayer.
	However, the Government recognise the strength of feeling on this issue, and the fact that others believe that the resettlement of BIOT can be done more easily than we have previously assessed. We believe that our policy should be determined by the possibilities of what is practicable.
	I am therefore announcing to the House the Government’s intention to commission a new feasibility study into the resettlement of BIOT.
	While we believe that there remain fundamental challenges to resettlement, we are resolved to explore these in partnership with all those with an interest in the
	future of BIOT. We are determined that this review will be as fair, transparent and inclusive as possible, so that all the facts and factors affecting the issue of resettlement can be shared and assessed clearly.
	As part of the process, officials are meeting with a wide range of interested parties, including Chagossian communities in Mauritius, the UK and in the Seychelles. We know that there are strong views and expertise within the House and we welcome contributions from all.
	The results of these consultations will inform directly the detailed shape of the new study. Though this will be a study commissioned by the Government, we will ensure that independent views from all interested parties will be used when considering how we take the study forward. Our intention is to make the remit of the study of resettlement as broad as possible, so that all the relevant issues—practical, financial, legal, environmental, and defence matters—are given full and proper consideration.
	It is important that we take this forward carefully. The last feasibility study 10 years ago took 18 months. The new study is unlikely to be concluded any more quickly. I will update the House once the initial consultation has been concluded.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Annual Report)

Jeremy Browne: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today laid before Parliament the 2012-13 annual report of the appointed person under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The appointed person is an independent person who scrutinises the use of the search power to support the measures in the Act to seize and forfeit criminal cash.
	The report gives the appointed person’s opinion as to the circumstances and manner in which the search powers conferred by the Act are being exercised. I am pleased that the appointed person, Douglas Bain, has expressed satisfaction with the operation of the search power and has found that there is nothing to suggest that the procedures are not being followed in accordance with the Act.
	From 1 April 2012 to the end of March 2013 over £65 million in cash was seized by law enforcement agencies in England and Wales under powers in the Act. The seizures are subject to further investigation, and the cash is subject to further judicially approved detention, before forfeiture in the magistrates court. These powers are a valuable tool in the fight against crime and the report shows that the way they are used has been, and will continue to be, monitored closely.